BUYING THIS BOOK WILL HELP TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV IN AFRICA!!

BUYING THIS BOOK WILL HELP TREAT PEOPLE WITH HIV IN AFRICA!!
Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy

Seeking Stories of AIDS Denialism

Have you or someone you know been harmed by AIDS Denialism? If you, or someone you care about, have been advised to stop taking HIV meds, ignore HIV test results, purchase a 'natural' cure etc., please email me.

aidsandbehavior@yahoo.com

All information will be kept confidential.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Living in Denial


This week's New Scientist Magazine is dedicated to denialism. Several excellent articles. Well worth a look. Deborah MacKenzie's article is especially worth reading.

Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth

By Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist, May 12, 2010

HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money.
Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, thatthousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.
This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines - and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial?
Here's a hypothesis: denial is largely a product of the way normal people think. Most denialists are simply ordinary people doing what they believe is right. If this seems discouraging, take heart. There are good reasons for thinking that denialism can be tackled by condemning it a little less and understanding it a little more.
Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics (see "How to be a denialist"). All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism.
This common ground tells us a great deal about the underlying causes of denialism. The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases - diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work.
Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.
Many people see this as a threat to important aspects of their lives. In Texas last year, a member of a state committee who was trying to get creationism added to school science standards almost said as much when he proclaimed"somebody's got to stand up to experts".
It is this sense of loss of control that really matters. In such situations, many people prefer to reject expert evidence in favour of alternative explanations that promise to hand control back to them, even if those explanations are not supported by evidence (see "Giving life to a lie").
All denialisms appear to be attempts like this to regain a sense of agency over uncaring nature: blaming autism on vaccines rather than an unknown natural cause, insisting that humans were made by divine plan, rejecting the idea that actions we thought were okay, such as smoking and burning coal, have turned out to be dangerous.
This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control.

Anecdote and emotion

Greg Poland, head of vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, often speaks out against vaccine denial. He calls his opponents "the innumerate" because they are unable to grasp concepts like probability. Instead, they reason based on anecdote and emotion. "People use mental short cuts - 'My kid got autism after he got his shots, so the vaccine must have caused it,'" he says. One emotive story about a vaccine's alleged harm trumps endless safety statistics.
Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist at the University of Connecticut at Storrs, understands this better than most: he spent a year infiltrating HIV denialist groups. Many of the people he met were ordinary and sincere. "Denialism fills some need," he says. "For people with HIV, it is a coping strategy," albeit a maladaptive one.
Kalichman, however, feels that everyday reasoning alone is not enough to make someone a denialist. "There is some fragility in their thinking that draws them to believe people who are easily exposed as frauds," he says. "Most of us don't believe what they say, even if we want to. Understanding why some do may help us find solutions."
He believes the instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers. "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance. "Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem. That is why these movements all have the same features, especially the underlying conspiracy theory."
Neither the ringleaders nor rank-and-file denialists are lying in the conventional sense, Kalichman says: they are trapped in what classic studies of neurosis call "suspicious thinking". "The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere," he says. "All people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity."
It is not only similar tactics and psychology that unite denial in its many guises: there are also formal connections between the various movements.
Many denialist movements originate as cynical efforts by corporations to cast doubt on findings that threaten their bottom line. Big Tobacco started it in the 1970s, recruiting scientists willing to produce favourable data and bankrolling ostensibly independent think tanks and bogus grass-roots movements (see "Manufacturing doubt"). One such think tank was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), set up in 1993 by tobacco company Philip Morris (American Journal of Public Health, vol 91, p 1749). TASSC didn't confine itself to tobacco for long. After getting funds from Exxon, it started casting doubt on climate science.
Such links between denial movements are not unusual. A number of think tanks in the US and elsewhere have been funded by both the oil and tobacco industries and have taken denialist positions on smoking and warming.
TASSC folded when its true identity became widely known, but its successor,Junk Science, still rubbishes tobacco and climate research and warns people not to believe any scientist who says something "might be" true or uses statistics - which pretty much covers all scientists.
Perhaps it is no surprise that some industries are prepared to distort reality to protect their markets. But the tentacles of organised denial reach beyond narrow financial interests. For example, some prominent backers of climate denial also deny evolution. Prominent creationists return the favour both in the US and elsewhere. Recent legislative efforts to get creationism taught in US schools have been joined by calls to "teach the controversy" on warming as well.
These positions align neatly with the concerns of the US political and religious right, and denial is often driven by an overtly political agenda. Some creationists have explicitly argued that the science of both climate and evolution involve "a left-wing ideology that promotes statism, nanny-state moralism and... materialism".
People who buy into one denialism may support others for this reason. Dan Kahan at Yale Law School has found that people's views on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage predict their position on climate science too. This, he argues, is because social conservatives tend to be pro-business and resist the idea that it is damaging the planet (Nature, vol 436, p 296).
But other denialisms suggest psychology, not just ideology, is crucial. There is no obvious connection between conservatism and vaccine or AIDS denial, and flu denial was promulgated by a left-leaning group suspicious of the vaccine industry.

Common ground

Nevertheless, some connections exist that hint at a wider agenda. For example, there is considerable overlap in membership between the vaccine and HIV deniers, says John Moore, an AIDS researcher at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Both movements have massive but mysterious funding.
Consider, too, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a lobbying group for private medicine. It showcases nearly all denialist causes. In the past two years it has published articles claiming thatHIV tests do not detect HIV, second-hand smoke does little harm, smoking bans do not reduce heart attacks, global warming presents little health threat and proposals for a US vaccination registry are "not really about vaccines but about establishing a computer infrastructure... that can be used for other purposes later". It repeatedly published discredited assertions that vaccines cause autism.
It is tempting to wonder if activists sympathetic to climate and evolution denial might be grasping opportunities to discredit science in general by spreading vaccine and HIV denialism.
The conservative character of much denial may also explain its success at winning hearts and minds.
George Lakoff, a cognitive psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that conservatives have been better than progressives at exploiting anecdote and emotion to win arguments. Progressives tend to think that giving people the facts and figures will inevitably lead them to the right conclusions. They see anecdotes as inadmissible evidence, and appeals to emotion as wrong.
The same is true of scientists. But against emotion and anecdote, dry statements of evidence have little power. To make matters worse, scientists usually react to denial with anger and disdain, which makes them seem even more arrogant.
Poland has reached a similar conclusion. He has experimented a few times with using anecdote and appeals to emotion when speaking to lay audiences. "I get very positive responses - except from numerates, who see it as emotionally manipulative," he says.
here are lessons here for other scientists who engage with denial. They can only win by learning to speak to the "innumerates", who are otherwise likely prey for denialists.
The stakes are high - and sometimes even personal. Like many vaccine developers, Poland has received death threats. "I get phone messages saying 'I hope your kids are safe'," he says. So has Faye Flam, a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter who has written in support of climate science.
Denialism has already killed. AIDS denial has killed an estimated 330,000 South Africans. Tobacco denial delayed action to prevent smoking-related deaths. Vaccine denial has given a new lease of life to killer diseases like measles and polio. Meanwhile, climate change denial delays action to prevent warming. The backlash against efforts to fight the flu pandemic could discourage preparations for the next, potentially a more deadly one.
If science is the best way to understand the world and its dangers, and acting on that understanding requires popular support, then denial movements threaten us all.
***Minor correction: I am a Clinical/Community Psychologist, on faculty in a Social Psychology Division. I said it was minor.
Read all of the articles, including a commentary by some guy in the UK who hasn't a clue what I am saying but seems to really hate me just the same. Click here.


46 comments:

  1. Can you provide a credible reference where it states that "Thousands Died" specifically from H1N1 please.

    Can you explain how in the first wave of this specious pandemic the very young and elderly were touted as the at risk group, and now it is the young and healthy who are said to be at highest risk.

    Would you care to comment on why Panvax a seasonal flu and H1N1 combination have been BANNED from being administered to children under 5 years of age in Australia.

    And finally, can you please explain why there was NO increased mortality in any population in the last flu season compared to any other year where H1N1 was not circulating.

    A swine flu pandemic? What will you dream up this year? perhaps you can rehash avian flu or SARS, two other notable non-events, right up there with Ebola. All going to decimate the planet but we are still here.....as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whether Michael Fitzpatrick hates you or not, Seth, he completely misses the point about what denialism is.

    It is not merely the holding of a minority or unpopular viewpoint - it is the "employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."

    This thing we call "denialism" is a very real phenomenon - especially in the internet era - and it needs to be named.

    It is not debate. It is not merely the holding of a minority viewpoint or arguing its merits rationally and on the basis of evidence. It is the deployemnt of fundamentally dishonest tactics to support a particular ideological position. And it needs a name - if only to distinguish it from legitimate debate.

    Fitzpatrick's principal objection to the term "denialism" (and it's a relatively new coinage whose exact meaning has yet to fully stabilise in the language) seems to be that the term is used to describe those who deny the historical fact of the systematic genocide of European Jews during the mid 20th century.

    He seems to be saying that because some Holocaust denialists are also antisemitic or have Nazi sympathies, then any use of the term "denialist" implies a similar perjorative political meaning.

    That's just fatuous. The term Holocaust denialists refers to their characteristic of employing rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate (historical) debate, when in actuality there is none, not their supposed antisemitsm or propensity to salute swastikas.

    Equally fatuous is his criticism of your pointing out Duesberg's German connections in your discussion of his supporteres. The fact is that Duesberg is German in origin, often works there, has many friends there, and his personal relationships there seem to be as central to the support he has garnered for his AIDS denialist position as his personal relationships at Berkeley or elsewhere in the US. To suggest that you were trying to paint him as a Nazi is absurd.

    I'm reminded of Basil Fawlty hysterically shouting "Don't mention the war!"

    While Fitzpatrick acknowledges that Duesberg is wrong, he complains that it took the scientific community five years to comprehensively refute him. What he doesn't mention is that such refutation was over fifteen years ago - and yet Duesberg and his supporters continue to promote their beliefs today. Surely this should make it obvious that what is going on is not legitimate scientific debate.

    For someone who was deeply involved in opposing the Wakefield nonsense, Fitzpatrick seems remarkably naive when he opines: "We always need more debate not less." This is a fine enough sentiment in itself, but first you need to distinguish actual debate from something else which is clearly not debate.

    And it helps to have a name for it.

    See:
    Stop this witch hunt against ‘evil deniers’
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7516/

    See also:
    SPECIAL REPORT: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?
    http://snoutworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-hiv-cause-aids

    ReplyDelete
  3. Which commentary ? I got as far as here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400-living-in-denial-questioning-science-isnt-blasphemy.html

    Oh I need to post an article on my blog that came via Craig Murray about an activist being locked up in jail for trying to help people with HIV. Maksim Popov :

    See http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/.

    I know its a small gesture but if people could spread the word.

    Craig was a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, had a major falling out with the Government re torture and has been a thorn in the side of the establishment ever since. He is often over-the-top but his heart is in the right place. And he's a Scot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bill
    I know you read this blog and post anonymous comments.
    Go read this new article in Lancet. Bill, stop this non-sense and get yourself on a life-sustaining treatment regimen before it is too late. Stop listening to the crazy Duesberg idiots NOW... before it is too late!

    "Life expectancy of individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: a collaborative analysis of 14 cohort studies"

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61113-7/fulltext#article_upsell

    ReplyDelete
  5. One can only wonder how many people have died unnecessarily by listening to the insanities of Duesberg and other bizarre AIDS denialists. It is really tragic that there are people who really believe them and stop their medications. I can understand the emotional vulnerabilities of such people because AIDS denialism offers them a "solution" that they want to hear, but they should still have common sense.

    As for AIDS denialists who tell others to quit their AIDS medications because they dont work, I think they should be investigated for practicing medicine without a license. If a crazy guy goes around selling water for a medication that cures cancer and was reported, there would be a prosecution. AIDS denialists are not that different. I have hard time understanding how some AIDS denialists can do that without any consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bill I am a HIV patient who once flirted with denliasm. I saw the light. A little rational thinking and you'll see that its a handful of crazies vs an army of good, caring people who have the skills and knowledge to keep us alive.

    If you want to talk email me via my blog. I am really pissed off that these morons who poison people's minds with pseudo-scientific drivel, quote mine and regail us with the same of dated garbage are determined to ruin yet more lives.

    Please see some sense and don't die of ignorance as surely you will if you don't embrace reason.

    Ever read this book ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Band_Played_On

    ReplyDelete
  7. Which drug are you pedalling this week Seth?

    Read your paper

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61113-7/fulltext#article_upsell

    Saw the funding

    Funding
    UK Medical Research Council, GlaxoSmithKline.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Saw the funding....

    "Which drug are you pedalling this week Seth?"

    Go search Clark Baker's website and find every instance in which I have ever taken money from a pharmaceutical company. Go ahead, we will all wait.

    So dumb.

    I suppose Starbucks is 'behind' those coffee enemas that Maggiore pushed in her radical detox? And those quacks in New Mexico that shine lights up Farber's butt, they are not making any money, are they. And what about Celia? Does the Healthy Holistic Healing Institute (or whatever) pay her for plugging them?

    Do us all a favor. Take your paranoid conspiracy idiocy back to Rethinking AIDS where it belongs.

    Crazy is as Crazy does.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, it's Bill. Long time no talk. No, I don't make anonymous posts here -- why would I? I'm still struggling with my book report on Boily.

    Hey, JohnnyNevirapine! Ever heard of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome? Check out what the drug may do to you:

    http://liam.gnn.tv/_var/blogs/9543-4bf8fdd70f333f9be980a6b5d0404c9d.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  10. GSK presumably paid for some of the trials. Shocker. They make drugs, shocker!!! They even test their drugs out. Can you believe it ? How evil and sick is that, testing new drugs to make sure they work and won't kill anyone

    However the data is available for anyone to pick over it, disect and spot flaws. Anon, how about having a go at that then report back. I eagerly await your conclusions.

    Disclaimer: I have GSK stock and once worked for them in Harlow, Essex in the drug discovery division. Note to Ed. seriously! The canteen there is bad but its a good place to work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There was a great comment when I looked this morning on the New Scientist thread for Michael Fitzpatrick's article Questioning science isn't blasphemy .

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400-living-in-denial-questioning-science-isnt-blasphemy.html

    This is the article in which he argues:

    According to Kalichman, denialists often "cross the line between what could arguably be protected free speech". He justifies suppression of debate on the feeble grounds that this would only legitimise the deniers and that scientists' time would be better spent on research.

    Such attempts to combat pseudoscience by branding it a secular form of blasphemy are illiberal and intolerant. They are also ineffective, tending not only to reinforce cynicism about science but also to promote a distrust for scientific and medical authority that provides a rallying point for pseudoscience.

    As Skidelsky says, "the extension of the 'denier' tag to group after group is a development that should alarm all liberal-minded people". What we need is more debate, not less.


    I would have reposted the comment here, if I had been quicker about downloading it.

    It was a moderately-worded piece from "Ben" expressing its author's opinions on the "suppression" of free discussion of the Holocaust... err... "hoax" as he puts it.

    Unfortunately, when I checked the site again tonight the comment (it was #2 on the thread) had been replaced by:

    "This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed."

    I hope that Michael Fitzpatrick will have the courage of his convictions, and insist that the deleted comment by a paying NS subscriber be reinstated.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A related story here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bill:
    Lot's of things cause Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Sulfonimides are the most common cause - so should people not take antibiotics for infections?
    Should they not take other drugs which list SJ as a potential side effect, like anticonvulsants, tylenol, gout medicines, antifungals, tetracycline antibiotics, macrolide antibiotics, or other NSAIDS?
    Perhaps no one should take any medicines - is that what you are saying?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This may be off topic, but I felt compelled to write it. I was perusing the questioningaids boards and there is person there named gladalive.
    She posted in the health issues section that she has exactly 5 cd4 cells. Yes, 5!! She continues to refuse meds. It breaks my heart to see something like that. Its so unnecessary and doesnt have to be. I just hope this person doesnt die, as Ive followed her story for a while and she seems very sweet. http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?p=41497#post41497

    ReplyDelete
  15. so why don't you intervene and guide her onto the right path?
    If you don't her body will be paraded through the streets by Mountain man and JP Moore.

    ReplyDelete
  16. An interesting new bit of research. While it needs much testing, it is an interesting approach to truly ridding the body of the virus. It may or may not pan out but if it does how would ridding the virus completely from infected individuals fit in the "Big Pharma keeps people sick with imaginary diseases" conspiracy?

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627614.600-remove-hivs-invisibility-cloak-to-defeat-it.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kralc Rekab,

    What the hell kind of name is that?!!? Your rhetorical questions are as ridiculous as your name:

    Lot's of things cause Stevens-Johnson syndrome.

    So what? My point was that Nevirapine causes it

    Sulfonimides are the most common cause - so should people not take antibiotics for infections?

    Depends if the risks outweigh the benefits.


    Should they not take other drugs which list SJ as a potential side effect, like anticonvulsants, tylenol, gout medicines, antifungals, tetracycline antibiotics, macrolide antibiotics, or other NSAIDS?

    Not worried other drugs causing SJS, worried about Nevirapine.

    Perhaps no one should take any medicines - is that what you are saying?

    No, that's not what saying. Professor K oughta impose an IQ test on some of these dense commentators.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bill,

    "Depends if the risks outweigh the benefits."

    OMG! You finally understand! The use of drugs needs the weighing out of risks vs. benefits. In the case of ARVs the risk is small for most people. The benefit is...staying alive. It only took you how long? But you finally understand! Congratulations!

    Now as to Nevirapine what you need to ask yourself is: What is the risk for an individual to develop SJD and is there a genetic predisposition that would make said individual more prone to developing it? You see Bill, what you seem to not understand AT ALL is that a person's genetic background greatly affects the risk of developing side effects to drugs (HIV or otherwise). It isn't always the drug itself but rather the response the body generates to it, the body's inability to metabolize it, or others. Sadly you are so stuck in denialism land that you do not bother to seek out any information that may refute your own little faith. This is why denial is not the same as science. This is why if HIV is eradicated (and I do hope it will be) it will be through science, not through the ramblings of science-illiterate cranks and conspiracy theorists. Thankfully the former continues to advance despite the existence of the latter.

    (PS it's been a few months, have you completed your book report yet? I've read it and it wasn't really that complicated. It took me about 30 minutes.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also, Bill, do you realize that to cut MTCT it only takes one, single, solitary dose of Nevirapine for the baby? What do you think the "risk" is for the child with one single dose? How about a 50% "risk" that the child will not be infected with that damn, fake, phony, harmless virus?
    Is that worth the risk, you tool?
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  20. In fairness to Bill, I believe the odds are about 25% - 30% for MTCT. I guess that is acceptable for him. Never mind how the children feel about it. Maybe we could ask EJ?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bill, would you take a drug whose SERIOUS REACTIONS include:
    Disseminated intravascular coagulation pancytopenia
    thrombocytopenia
    agranulocytosis
    aplastic anemia
    anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions
    angioedema
    bronchospasm
    bleeding
    GI ulceration/perforation
    hypoprothrombinemia
    nephrotoxicity
    hepatotoxicity
    salicylism
    Reye's syndrome
    or whose more common reactions include dyspepsia nausea vomiting abdominal pain rash tinnitus dizziness hyperuricemia bleeding ecchymosis constipation and diarrhea?

    No, it's not AZT or nevirapine - it's nasty old asprin.

    And what the hell kind of ridiculous name is "Bill"? How do you expect us to take you seriously when you choose as a moniker a word meaning the facial protuberance and mouthparts of a duck?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bill Said "Professor K oughta impose an IQ test on some of these dense commentators."

    I tried that Bill, but it did not seem to help you or us.

    Be careful Bill. Do not be rude to the smart people. This is not Rethinking AIDS. My readers are allowed out on week days and do not retire to a rubber room. This is not Crowe, Rasnick, Duesberg you are interacting with. Take a deep breath and try to focus.

    People here are just trying to help you. So be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh dear, Poodles, did I misrepresent the data on Nevirapine?

    Maybe I was just trying to make the AIDS Denialists feel more comfortable!!

    Actually it was a mistake on my part. See how that works, Bill? When one is not trying to intentioanlly mislead, one admits to being wrong!! Now if Henry Bauer would just do that!
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  24. Not at all JT. I may have misread your post. I thought the 50% was referring to the risk of a child getting HIV from its mother without treatment. My bad (look Bill! This is how people admit to making mistakes!)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Snout,

    My gay austrailian nurse friend! How's it going?

    You write:

    Bill, would you take a drug whose SERIOUS REACTIONS include:
    Disseminated intravascular coagulation pancytopenia
    thrombocytopenia
    agranulocytosis
    aplastic anemia
    anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions
    angioedema
    bronchospasm
    bleeding
    GI ulceration/perforation
    hypoprothrombinemia
    nephrotoxicity
    hepatotoxicity
    salicylism
    Reye's syndrome
    or whose more common reactions include dyspepsia nausea vomiting abdominal pain rash tinnitus dizziness hyperuricemia bleeding ecchymosis constipation and diarrhea?

    No, it's not AZT or nevirapine - it's nasty old asprin.


    See, this is Exhibit A on why you follow illogical beliefs:

    1.We take aspirin
    2.It has side effects
    3. We tolerate aspirin without many of its side effects

    Therefore, we should tolerate AZT without many of its side effects!

    Aspirin and AZT ARE DIFFERENT DRUGS, Stupid. However, I'm sure if you took 1500 mg of aspirin daily for life (like AZT was once prescribed), you'd come down with all those nasty side effects you describe. Ask your pal DeShong whether he takes AZT.

    You guys are a trip! Professor K and his 3 internet friends: Snout, Poodle and Deshong.

    I've missed you bozos. But, I'm still having trouble with the Boily book report. I may have to take summer school.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bill
    If you cannot even read a simple paper like Boily et al., that offers just one example of how stupid anyone can be to believe that HIV is not sexually transmitted. You illustrate how easy it is for someone to buy into the Crowe-Crap and the Padian Rant. Just mindlessly repeating back what crazy people like Rasnick say does not make it true, Bill. I mean really, you cannot even read Boily. What does that tell you?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Au Contraire, Professor K. I have read Boily, repeatedly, meticulousy and fervently.

    But, I have writer's block and an insitutional bias against doing homework assigned by stodgy, psycho-babbling professors.

    Padian, by the way, was the largest epidemiological study of hetero transmission of HIV -- they found no seroconversions after 6 years of research.

    That's probably why in the U.S., HIV is mostly confined to gay men and drug users. But, I have no objection to wearing condoms for other good reasons. I did buy stock in Durex several years ago -- made a fortune!

    Regards, Bill

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Au Contraire, Professor K. I have read Boily, repeatedly, meticulousy and fervently...Padian, by the way, was the largest epidemiological study of hetero transmission of HIV -- they found no seroconversions after 6 years of research."

    *Facepalm*

    You clearly have not read Boily "meticulousy and fervently" or you would have been able to write up your little book report. I read it in under an hour and had no problem understanding it. The fact that you fall back on the Padian misunderstanding is indicative that you, Bill, have not only NOT read Boily but that you have doubtfully read anything not misquoted previously on denialist sites. It is truly sad to see how little you value facts over your preconceived faith. Truly sad indeed. The thing about real science, Billy, is that sometimes the facts disagree with what you think. When that happens you either have the choice to adjust your hypothesis around the Facts (science) or try to twist the facts around your hypothesis (denialism). Unfortunately I don't think you will ever leave the latter category and join the former but if you ever do we'll be here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Poodle!

    Let me quote Padian, so there cannot be a misunderstanding:

    1. "To our knowledge, our study is the largest and longest study of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the United States."

    Do you dispute this quote?

    2. "We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study."

    Do you dispute this quote?

    3. "Nevertheless, the absence of seroincident infection over the course of the study cannot be entirely attributed to significant behavior change. No transmission occured among the 25 percent of couples who did not use condoms consistently at their last follow-up nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up"

    Do you dispute this quote?

    You yap on and on about facts, but you cannot handle these facts.

    ReplyDelete
  30. OK Bill
    You asked for it. Off you go on the Padian Rant. It makes me nauseous.

    So we are back to the review of heterosexual (Vaginal) HIV transmission by Boily et al. in the Lancet - which includes the Padian paper. The paper you were asked to read and comment on the last time you went off on the Padian Rant. Did someone say perseveration?

    So Bill, you must now come back with a response regarding the Boily paper. Unless you offer us an explanation for those findings, which you cannot find on the Rethinking AIDS website to regurgitate back up, then you will not be welcome to post here again. So common Bill. Show us what you got - and please do not waste my time deleting your excuses.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The thing about real science, Billy, is that sometimes the facts disagree with what you think. When that happens you either have the choice to adjust your hypothesis around the Facts (science) or try to twist the facts around your hypothesis (denialism).

    Nicely put, Poodles.

    http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2008/05/when_good_scientists_go_bad_ho.php

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=527

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sigh. Bill goes right back to cherry picking quotes from a study that he does not understand. Predictable...sad but predictable. This, Bill, is why Seth wants you to actually read Boily instead of leaving the PDF closed on your desktop and ignoring it in favor of the rubbish you can find on RA. Unless you actually READ and UNDERSTAND the studies, cherry picking quotes (or copying and pasting quotes cherry picked by others) will be the best you can do. Sadly, all this will serve to do is artificially supporting your little faith but never truly giving you facts.

    So read Boily's study (for once). You will find that if you actually read and understand it that your little denialism faith is grounded in nothing more than a whole lot of BS. At that point you will have to choose between changing your ideas to fit the facts or continue trying to twist the facts to fit your faith. Unfortunately I think we all know which you will choose.

    (P.S. If you are as smart as you think you are this should take long. It isn't the lengthiest study in the world here. You've had months now to read what should take very little time.)

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Bill" is a seasoned troll who used to post to Panda's Thumb as "Wavy Davy." He gets a thank you in Duesberg's 2003 Indian J. Biosciences paper and once tried to win a lawsuit against GSK using denialist argumentoids (see the De Silvah case documents on AIDSTruth). Also AKA Hank Barnes. Also a Federalist Society member, according to his lawfirm's website.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bill, why do you think one, single study should be the gospel?
    Do you honestly think that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually? Seriously?

    Seriously?
    JTD

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hey Todd,

    I actually should separate you out from the rest of the riff-raff here, since you've been in the trenches with this unfair and unwarranted false stigma of HIV.

    Bill, why do you think one, single study should be the gospel?

    I never said Padian should be "gospel" But it was the largest study of HIV transmission in the US, and found no seroconversions among the participants. At least 1 person should have seroconverted after 6 years of condomless sex.

    Do you honestly think that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually? Seriously?

    I'll try to be serious here. I think the sex angle has been greatly oversold. I think it's possible even likely, that HIV isn't transmitted heterosexually or homosexually. The entrenched homophobia during the Reagan 80's lead us all astray. Here's why:

    1. The first NY Times article on "AIDS" comes out in 1981: "Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals"

    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/03/us/rare-cancer-seen-in-41-homosexuals.html?scp=1&sq=rare%20cancer%20altman&st=cse.

    First problem: These are all men, not lesbians.

    So, I can see folks making the leap of logic that it must be the anal sex, causing the problem.

    But, this was an error, because NONE of these 41 gay men knew each other or had sex with each other.

    "None of the patients knew each other.."

    That's why it was thought NOT to be a contagious disease:

    Quote: "The cause of the outbreak is unknown, and there is as yet no evidence of contagion."

    Quote: "The medical investigators say some indirect evidence actually points away from contagion as a cause."

    So, if it wasn't the anal sex, what was causing the Kaposi Sarcoma in these gay men?

    Second Problem: Most of the patients were druggies and already sick.

    "Many of the patients have also been treated for viral infections such as herpes, cytomegalovirus and hepatitis B as well as parasitic infections such as amebiasis and giardiasis. Many patients also reported that they had used drugs such as amyl nitrite and LSD to heighten sexual pleasure."

    The author is stuck on "sexual pleasure," but the bottom line is that amyl nitrites, now used as room de-odorizers and shoe polish are a highly toxic substances, that should not be inhaled. But, they were highly marketed to gay men at discos in the 70s and became a popular fad.

    So, the first cohort of AIDS patients, Yes, were gay men. But, they didn't know each other, didn't have sex with each other, and were mostly sick drug users.

    This was the gay equivalent of the hippie drug users of the 60s and 70s. It wasn't the sex, but the drugs.

    That's why it never spread to the general population -- there wasn't an infection to spread.

    If it truly was a new virus, then Republican frat boys and sorority girls at the colleges across the country would be dying off, since their humping is far more promiscuous and prodigious than the small gay communities of New York, SF and LA. Bisexuals would have spread the virus to the heteros. Didn't happen though.

    Peace Out, Bro. Stay healthy.






    Second problem: These men all drug users.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey Bill
    The people of New Zealand are all bought by Big Pharma. Check our their interview with Seth.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/

    ReplyDelete
  37. At least 1 person should have seroconverted after 6 years of condomless sex.

    Gee, Bill, as the Padian expert here, exactly how many couples in the study had "6 years of condomless sex"? Any?


    That's why it was thought NOT to be a contagious disease: Quote: "The cause of the outbreak is unknown, and there is as yet no evidence of contagion."

    Bill, this newspaper article was only a few weeks after the first reports of what we now know as AIDS were published in MMWR. The cause was simply unclear at that stage. Try some reading comprehension: "no evidence of contagion" is not the same as "was thought NOT to be a contagious disease", especially in the context of the sentence which preceded it: "Cancer is not believed to be contagious, but conditions that might precipitate it, such as particular viruses or environmental factors, might account for an outbreak among a single group."

    The author is stuck on "sexual pleasure," but the bottom line is that amyl nitrites, now used as room de-odorizers and shoe polish...

    ROTFL! Oh Bill, you're so sweet! Is that what your roommate told you about that funny little brown bottle you found in the freezer one day? Hell, I always thought it was for cleaning paintbrushes.

    "Many of the patients have also been treated for viral infections such as herpes, cytomegalovirus and hepatitis B as well as parasitic infections such as amebiasis and giardiasis. Many patients also reported that they had used drugs such as amyl nitrite and LSD to heighten sexual pleasure."

    80% of the population has herpes simplex, Bill, and nearly that number have CMV as well. And amebiasis and giardiasis are not exactly uncommon either. And LSD causes AIDS? Then how come Kary Mullis is still alive?

    The math is pretty simple, Bill. HIV negative drug users don't get AIDS - ever - and almost never get anything that looks remotely like AIDS. But most HIV positive non-drug users do eventually get AIDS.

    Popper users who don't have HHV8 never get KS. Popper users with HHV8 rarely get KS (and if they do it's usually mild) unless they also have HIV.

    So what does this tell you about competing hypotheses of causation (that wasn't known in July 1981)?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Terribly sorry, the Panda's Thumb ID was "Navy Davy" and not "Wavy Davy."

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/05/peer-reviewed-r.html

    ReplyDelete
  39. I never said Padian should be "gospel" But it was the largest study of HIV transmission in the US, and found no seroconversions among the participants. At least 1 person should have seroconverted after 6 years of condomless sex.

    No Bill, but you do quote this study very often and overlook all others that do show seroconversion. You realize that the point of this particular study was to teach behavior that would reduce transmission, right? Using a study where people are heavily counseled on how to stop high risk activity as proof that HIV can’t be transmitted makes as much sense as using a study where contraceptives are highly pushed to show that sex cannot lead to conception. It is nonsensical. Other studies by Padian did show seroconversions. Why is it that you ignored those parts (I believe your exact words were “her retrospective study is NOTHING compared to her prospective study”). Is there any reason why you ignore the other studies but seem focused only on this one? You have also misunderstood the study if you claim that it amounted to "6 years of condomless sex"...that or you have not read it.

    The first NY Times article on "AIDS" comes out in 1981: "Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals"…First problem: These are all men, not lesbians.

    That’s not a “problem”. It is simply where the first cases were found. Lesbians are less prone to transmitting HIV to each other sexually for obvious anatomical reasons.

    But, this was an error, because NONE of these 41 gay men knew each other or had sex with each other.

    Just because they did not know each other does NOT mean they were not part of an extended sexual network. Sexual network tracing has been used (for example in Russia) and show a very clear pattern of sexual transmission. For a more modern example, look at the women infected by Tony Perkins. How many of them knew each other? Simply because they did not know EACH OTHER does not mean they do not have extended connections. Common sense.

    That's why it was thought NOT to be a contagious disease Quote: "The cause of the outbreak is unknown, and there is as yet no evidence of contagion… The medical investigators say some indirect evidence actually points away from contagion as a cause."

    Correction; at the time the first few cases were found there was no evidence of “contagion”. You are looking at a newspaper article from 1981 when nothing was known about HIV. Simply based on those 41 cases there was no evidence of contagion. You seem to be ignoring everything between 1981 and now if you claim this is still the case.

    Second Problem: Most of the patients were druggies and already sick.

    Bill, drugs have long ago been shown not to be the cause of AIDS. Shortly after Duesberg wrote his paper suggesting it was, several studies were done that showed otherwise. Correlation between drug use and HIV does not equal causation. There are many AIDS patients that did not use drugs, even before the use of AZT. For example, look at hemophiliacs and recipients of blood transfusions prior to the screening of the blood supply. The transmission dropped to near zero after testing, however (which does not support your drug hypothesis).


    So, the first cohort of AIDS patients, Yes, were gay men. But, they didn't know each other, didn't have sex with each other, and were mostly sick drug users.

    This is the problem with taking information from the first few cases (when information was sorely lacking) and assigning conclusions to the AIDS epidemic while ignoring all other data in between.


    Bisexuals would have spread the virus to the heteros. Didn't happen though.

    Are you really saying you believe there are no heterosexuals with AIDS?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I am not sure Bill has a clue what he believes. He just seems not to believe anything credible.

    My question is whether I even let him respond. I suppose I will. But he is tedious. If only he said something new -did not regurgitate a rethinker's website.

    I find it difficult to even wade through the same recycled crap, over and over. My blog has become a cyber-psychiatric unit for AIDS Deniers, with repeated nutty ideas bouncing off the rubber walls. Insanity is endless, even when you each your end.

    ReplyDelete
  41. More of Bill/Hank/Demian/Davy attempting to explain himself in the comments here:

    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/06/moderation_in_t.html?cid=1494823

    "5. 3 or so years ago, barely after I even got e-mail, I debated a friend mine, Dr. JF, about HIV and AIDS. I took the difficult position of trying to argue that HIV did not cause AIDS. Dr. JF took the opposite view. I lost. The judges were 3 mutual friends of ours. It was completely a small, nerdy, e-mail deal among about 7 college friends of mine."

    Recipient of a 2005 "Superior AIDS Rethinking Action Honours"
    http://www.aras.ab.ca/SARA/sara.html

    Interviewed with Clark Baker:

    http://rethinkersworldwideforum.aimoo.com/category/Clark-Baker-and-David-Steele-Interview-and-Podcast-now-available-1-1033082.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.facebook.com/people/D-David-Steele/100001056944487

    And the blog he used to run:
    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/

    ReplyDelete
  43. Bill,
    Re: "Kralc Rekab" - try reading it backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Your style is so unique compared to other folks I have read stuff from.

    I appreciate you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I'll just bookmark this web site. line feed payday loans
    Here is my web page :: linefeed.org payday loans

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete